By the Court.—This writ petition questions the correctness of the order dated 25th January, 2010 whereby the District Magistrate, Allahabad has rejected the claim of the petitioner seeking freehold rights in favour of the petitioner society in respect of Plot No. 2 (B-2) Civil Station, Allahabad, which the petitioner claims as a matter of right in terms of the Orders dated 10.1.2002, 27.2.2003, 21.11.2005, 25.3.2008 and 18.11.2009. Further a mandamus has been sought commanding the respondent No. 3, Allahabad Development Authority to release the sanctioned map for raising constructions over the site in question.

2. An Amendment Application No. 190749 of 2014 has also been filed praying for quashing the Government Orders dated 28.9.2011 and 4.3.2014 contending that the said Government Orders cannot be utilized as a tool by the State Government so as to defeat the rights which have accrued to the petitioner in terms of the Government Orders already brought on record.

A counter-affidavit by the State to the writ petition as well as to the amendment application has been filed disputing the stand of the petitioner on various grounds and also contending that the property in dispute was originally leased out. The lessor from whom the petitioner’s society is claiming a transfer has also filed a civil suit for cancellation of the deed executed in favour of the petitioner’s society. There was a direction to maintain status quo by the High Court on 8th March, 2006 in an appeal in the proceedings arising out of the said suit which may also be taken notice of.

The respondent No. 4 namely, the Nagar Nigam has also filed a counter-affidavit even though it has absolutely no role to play in the matter of grant of freehold rights for which the petition has been filed.

An Impleadment Application No. 190805 of 2012 has been filed by Pushpraj Singh contending that the rights of the original lessor who is succeeded by the present applicant would be directly affected in the event of this petition being finally disposed off, and therefore, the applicant should also be heard in opposition to the writ petition. A counter-affidavit to the said impleadment application has been filed disputing the stand of the applicant contending that the applicant cannot claim any rights in relation to the grant of freehold in which only the application of the petitioner is pending. A rejoinder-affidavit to the said impleadment application has been filed reiterating that the suit with regard to the cancellation of the deed in favour of the petitioner is pending and in the said background, the orders passed from time to time should also be taken into account.

Sri Umesh Narain Sharma learned Senior Counsel and Sri Chandan Sharma, Advocate have advanced their submissions on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General has advanced his submissions alongwith Sri Nimai Das on behalf of the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Ajit kumar Singh has also advanced his submissions on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri R.S. Umrao has advanced his submissions on behalf of the proposed respondent Pushpraj Singh.

3. We have considered the submissions raised and at the very outset, we may dispose of the two applications, one seeking amendment and the other for the impleadment, as no orders appear to have been passed on the said applications during the pendency of the writ petition.

4. Coming to the Amendment Application No. 190749 of 2014, the same challenges the Government Orders dated 28.9.2011 and 4.3.2014, whereby the State Government has modified the earlier procedure and method of grant of freehold rights. The petitioner contends that such Government Orders would not be applicable, inasmuch as, the same provides for a deemed rejection of pending applications if they have not been finalized. The Government Orders have been castigated as sporadic, casual and random, on the ground that the Government has not taken any action in